Standing Committee G

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 68 - Termination of police responsibility forstray dogs

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment
No. 18, in clause 68, page 56, line 4, leave out subsection (1).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 21, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(5) After subsection (1) of that section insert— 
 ''(1A) Where a stray dog taken to a local authority is ill or injured, treatment should be sought by the appropriate local authority at the earliest possible time.''.'. 
No. 22, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(6) After subsection (6) of that section insert— 
 ''(6A) In this section a ''stray dog'' is one which is unaccompanied by either owner or person responsible for it in a public place or any other place without the permission of the owner of the land or premises where it is found.''.'. 
No. 99, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end add— 
'( ) It shall be the duty of the local authorities to provide a twenty-four hour dog warden service'.

Matthew Green: Before the Minister gets too excited about amendment No. 18, it does not, as it appears, try to prevent the transfer of responsibility to a single body, which we welcome.

Alun Michael: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not normal to hear the prosecution before the case for the defence?

Matthew Green: Well, the Minister may be right, but he will notice that this amendment is No. 18 and was tabled early in the process to establish that funds would be transferred. Since then, both in the debate and in a letter that he kindly copied us in on, he has said that the transfer of responsibility will not take place until the transfer of funds. In a sense, we have got the reassurance that we were seeking, but it may be opportune if he enlightens the Committee—although he may be somewhat constrained—as to the possible scale of the funding, since there are two widely differing figures.
The Local Government Association believes that the cost will be £13.2 million. That estimate is based on having one 24-hour full-time post, which is probably excessive for many councils, so for once I will not say that the LGA is absolutely right. I am sure that that is  a negotiating position, as I am also sure that the Home Office's estimate of £1.8 million is a negotiating position, since it seems too low. Given that the Minister is from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Home Office, what will he do to facilitate the meeting of those two widely different minds?

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to be back in my place and I apologise for my inexcusable absence on Tuesday. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) was able to make such good progress. [Hon. Members: ''So are we.''] I am not used to such extremely good humour in this Committee, which I am delighted to record.
Amendment No. 21 addresses our great concern about the vulnerability of stray dogs, particularly ill or injured animals. It has been drawn to our attention that stray dogs are especially vulnerable to being run over by cars and lorries, because they are not on a lead and therefore not under control. We are probing the Government to find out what arrangements will be made as a result of the consultations, which perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm are ongoing; I know that he met one of the dogs bodies—perhaps I should rephrase that—one of the bodies representing dog interests as recently as this week. We suggest that treatment should be sought by the appropriate local authority as early as possible. 
Stray dogs do not respect office hours and are unlikely to stray only between the hours of nine and five. The police are open all hours, but what arrangements will be made, not just for injured stray dogs, but for all strays? The police have a long and proud record of looking after stray dogs so they have proper facilities, such as kennels. How quickly will councils put arrangements in place to ensure that they have an adequate number of kennels? 
Where a stray is particularly badly hurt, they may be no alternative but for the animal to be put down. Many strays are put down, although fortunately not too many. According to the Library research paper, in 2002-03 only 11 per cent. of the 104,879 strays were put down. Those are the most recent figures and they are almost the lowest of the last 10 years. There is a concern that stray dogs will be destroyed either because they are injured or because they are particularly violent and aggressive. 
What facility will there be to police the kennels to ensure that people such as animal rights extremists will not attack those who are doing the excellent work that we ask them to do? The police kennels were unobtrusive and attracted little attention. Obviously one would hope that similar arrangements can be made for local authority dog kennels. The growing extremism of animal rights people is worrying.

Mark Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware that rural local authorities are concerned about the long distances that will have to be travelled and the large areas that will have to be covered? In my constituency in rural Lincolnshire,  stray dogs are an issue due to the activities of illegal hare coursers. When dogs are no longer fit enough to chase the hares across farmers' land, they are often dumped and left to fend for themselves. The Minister and I have exchanged correspondence on this matter. I hope that the rural local authorities' concerns are being taken into account in the changes proposed in the clause.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. As hare coursing is illegal, rather than be caught, the perpetrators of that crime prefer to dump their dogs. There is the additional problem that local authorities have to drive further in rural areas to find an appropriate kennel. That will obviously be a cost consideration. I am aware of the Minister's concern for animal welfare, and that of the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment. The Library research paper describes the response to the Government's consultation on this as follows:
 ''The threat of attacks on kennels from the public and organisations to prevent injured strays being put down was also a real fear for some respondents. For many it is not solely a matter of capacity for stray dogs but ensuring that the welfare of the animals is protected.'' 
Confirming the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) , it continues: 
 ''Respondents from remote towns and parishes thought that the proposed measure may not be practicable due to the distance stray dogs would have to be transported to be housed. For many the nearest suitable facilities would have been at the police station.'' 
Trying to find alternative facilities and incurring additional transport costs will put up the overall costs quite dramatically. It should be noted, as it was in the responses, that the present system operated by the police works extremely well. That is important. 
My next point is probably the most sensitive one for the Minister to answer; it was touched on by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I appreciate that discussions are ongoing and I am sure that the Minister is being patient about hearing all sides of the argument, but if there is to be a transfer of resources, what assurance can he give the Committee and thus the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and the National Dog Wardens Association that sufficient funds will have been transferred as of the date on which the Bill takes legislative effect?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is making a very good series of points. Does she share my concern that the Government have a track record of giving local authorities additional responsibilities without providing sufficient funding to allow them to cope with that, which has a direct impact in that local people pay increased council tax? [Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. Could the continuous conversations on the Government Benches please be curtailed? 
Alun Michael rose—

Anne McIntosh: I give way to the Minister.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Lady kindly slap down the intervention from her Back-Bench colleague, who ignores the massive cuts that are promised in local authority funds and services under Conservative proposals, and will she note that it is—

David Taylor: Order. We are discussing clause 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I hear what the Minister said, but the prospect of slapping down such a kindly and courteous gentleman as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness fills me with horror. On the Minister's other point, in approximately 10 weeks' time we shall have ample opportunity to discuss—

Alun Michael: Oh, this is an announcement.

Anne McIntosh: Well, I think that the announcement as to when the forthcoming election will be will come from the Government Benches.
Undoubtedly there will be costs for council tax payers, and I shall come to that. The Minister will know that I try to be constructive, co-operative and positive in our deliberations on the Bill. Will he look kindly on our attempt in amendment No. 22 to draft a definition of a stray dog? Close reading of the Bill discloses that there is no such definition, and I think that it is incumbent on us all to provide one. Having been brought up in a family in which we had dogs as youngsters, I know that male dogs in particular have a propensity to wander off to have a good frolic or for reasons of a more amorous nature. It is therefore important to have to hand a readily available definition as to the length of time—

Alun Michael: Is the hon. Lady aware that legislation on stray dogs has existed for some 98 years without the need for a definition, and that the intention of dogs in going to places other than where they should be has existed for much longer?

Anne McIntosh: I note with interest the points that the Minister makes, but just because something has existed without a definition for 98 years does not mean that it makes good law. It is important to put it on record that the Bill is riddled with such omissions. We have already identified at least two in earlier proceedings. We have tabled the amendment purely in a helpful and constructive way. We believe that our definition of a stray dog as
''one which is unaccompanied by either owner or person responsible for it in a public or any other place without the permission of the owner of the land or premises where it is found'' 
 would work. That leads to the matter of the microchip. There has been some disappointment that only a small percentage of animals that have been fitted with a microchip, at considerable expense, are returned to their owners? Will the Minister comment on that? Why are fewer strays reunited with their owners, even though dogs can now be fitted with microchips?

Alun Michael: Perhaps I am being slow, but could the hon. Lady tell me where in her amendment is the reference to microchips?

Anne McIntosh: It is not in the amendment. We are keeping an open mind on the subject; I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
Our modest amendment No. 22 would help the Minister. The fact that a dog had a microchip or a collar with its name and address—the sort of detail that can identify the owner—would lead to the presumption that the dog was not a stray. 
We urge the Government to accept amendment No. 99, which states: 
 ''It shall be the duty of the local authorities to provide a twenty-four hour dog warden service''. 
 It might seem blindingly obvious what the Government are asking local authorities to do, but it is well known and understood that the police operate a 24-hour dog warden service and that kennels are open for 24 hours, too. Council offices are usually open only between 9am and 5pm and only certain councils will operate a 24-hour service. Will the Minister elaborate on the additional responsibility of providing an entirely new dog warden service? What estimate has his Department made of the cost of providing a 24-hour service and of the transfer of resources from the Home Office to local authorities? As has already been established in Committee, this will be additional funding for local authorities. Does the Minister envisage that central taxation will fund the 24-hour service which amendment No. 99 makes clear is a de facto requirement of the Bill?

Matthew Green: I am fascinated that the hon. Lady believes that councils will have to have a 24-hour service. In my constituency, which is about the size of greater London, stray dogs are few and far between. Most stray dogs are found on farmland and farmers have a brutally effective way of dealing with them. It would be an over-requirement on local authorities to require them to have a person sitting there for 24 hours a day, waiting for a call that might come once every three weeks.

Anne McIntosh: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the discussion, and to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, he would know that the illegal activities that result in stray dogs often take place in the winter. If drag hunting is allowed to continue, there will be hounds that go astray. I do not suggest that there should be a 100-strong, 24-hour dog warden service, but a service should be available 24 hours day.
I have reserved one or two points that I would like to make on clause stand part.

David Taylor: Order. May I point out to the hon. Lady that I am minded to use my powers under Standing Order No. 68 not to allow further debate on clause 68 stand part?

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps I could make those points on this group of amendments then. What powers will be transferred to the local authorities? This is not a discretionary power; it will be a duty. There will be resource implications. Will the Government ensure that sufficient resources are transferred from the Home Office to local authorities up and down the country?
The point of this group of amendments is to probe the Minister on whether amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which the Government are seeking to do under clause 68, is sufficient. Will he confirm that the powers that I believe exist already in London—will be transferred across from the police? In Swansea there is already a detailed record in that regard and substantial costs have been run up. It would be valuable to know from the Minister whether in his view the costs are sufficiently clear. 
 Will enough kennels be available? Will the Minister confirm that they will not be vulnerable to attack from animal rights activists and that any stray dog that is injured will be brought to the appropriate local authority at the earliest possible time? If there is not to be 24-hour cover, what is the maximum delay that his Department would countenance before such a stray dog was treated? If injured animals were not treated promptly, it would obviously reflect badly on the Government. 
Apparently there are no comprehensive figures for the number of dogs impounded by the police across the country. In the city and county of Swansea, which has a population of about 225,000, during 2004 the local authority collected 925 dogs, while the police collected 397. The local authority in Swansea has an agreement with the local police to collect impounded stray dogs out of hours until 8.30 pm on weekdays and 24 hours throughout the weekend, which perhaps answers the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. There are substantial numbers of dogs running around during the weekend and out of hours. 
The authority takes the dogs to private kennels, with which they have a contract agreement. It does not have its own kennels or reception centre and estimates that providing those would involve considerable capital costs in additional staff and administration. Does the Minister expect that individual local authorities will have to set up their own kennels or reception centres and what estimate has he made of that cost?

Alun Michael: The hon. Members for Ludlow and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) have both asked about the transfer of powers and resources. The hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said that we have already referred to this and that I had assured the Committee that there would be a transfer of resources between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to reflect the transfer of responsibilities from the police to local authorities. He went too far, however, with his scurrilous suggestions that the police might estimate a low level of expenditure to keep any transfer of funds to a minimum, and that the Local Government Association might effectively demand money with menaces by exaggerating the burden that would be placed on it. Any figures discussed between those organisations and between two Government Departments would involve an objective assessment of the responsibilities that currently fall on the police, and what would be involved for local authorities to make sensible arrangements to cover the requirements of the Bill. That discussion, especially when it reaches the highly intelligent and competent Ministers who have responsibility in the two Departments, will lead to a sensible and satisfactory outcome.
It must be pointed out that the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister have been keen to emphasise that when responsibilities are transferred, responses should follow. The new burdens approach is sensible from the point of view of an orderly movement—often a devolution—of responsibilities to local government from central Government, and for ensuring that appropriate resources are transferred. I am sure that that will happen in this case. However, as the hon. Member for Vale of York suggested, discussions are going on—I do not like describing them as ongoing, because that makes them sound disorganised and confrontational, whereas these matters are dealt with in an orderly manner—and I am certain that suitable arrangements will be made. 
Some of the comments made have almost been contradictory, which is reasonable enough if hon. Members are trying to probe exactly what is intended. For example, the provision of dedicated kennels or a 24-hour service is not the only way to deal with stray animals. Appropriate local arrangements must be made, not least because the extent of the problem differs considerably across the country—it may be a major problem in one city, but a relatively minor one in another. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness pointed out, there are big differences between dealing with the problem in an urban area and  a rural area, where occasional problems may arise and distances may be considerable. That is why we want a degree of local flexibility. 
It may make far more sense to have a contractual arrangement with a vet to provide overnight cover, or with a charity or commercial organisation, as already happens in both rural and urban parts of the country. One of the representatives who came to speak to me about these issues when the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust came in was a vet who had provided such cover as part of his practice arrangements. It is important that the service is effective and is appropriate for the area, that it deals with the nuisance and that it is carried out in a way that deals with the animal welfare issues. 
The point has been made about strays causing a nuisance or being injured in a car accident. I will not regale the Committee with all my experiences in the 1989 Vale of Glamorgan by-election. There were many interesting experiences, but one of them involved a cat in the early hours of the morning, and a lot of cleaning up having to be done in the car when we had finished our journey. 
We know that, on the ground, dealing with such issues is complex; that is also the experience of the police. One of the examples given by the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club in their contributions, which I believe have been circulated to members of the Committee, described what has happened in Cardiff. Last Friday, I met the chief superintendent and some of his colleagues in Cardiff and discussed some of the problems that the police have had there. They include having to hold animals in wholly inappropriate circumstances, such as in the back of a van, because facilities are not available, the disruption of activities and vehicles therefore not being available for police use, perhaps at times of pressure. That is clearly is not a sensible use of resources. 
Against that background, the hon. Member for Vale of York referred to the amendments that she had tabled. I was a little surprised by those drafted in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so I spoke to the RSPCA last night. It seems to have woken up from an uncharacteristic slumber in order to rush in a couple of amendments at the last minute, without thinking about them properly, and without discussion. 
The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about the transfer of resources. However, the lead amendment—amendment No. 18—would delete part of the Bill and would therefore retain a power given to the police under previous legislation. I think that that is due to a misunderstanding, which I would like to clarify.

Matthew Green: The Minister will also notice that when I spoke, I made it clear that the amendment had been tabled to provoke a discussion on the transfer of funds, because that seemed the appropriate way of doing so. The Minister will understand that various techniques can be used in Committee, and that that is one of them. He therefore does not need to go into great detail as to why the amendment might not work—he can spare the Committee that.

Alun Michael: Well, I do not know whether the Committee should be spared. The hon. Gentleman's amendment was not about the transfer of resources; it was about what police powers will continue to exist under the new legislation. I want to make it clear that the police will retain their existing powers to deal with dangerous dogs. Section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables a constable or an officer of a local authority to seize any dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place. The fact is that the police have the same right as anyone else to take charge of a dog that does not have an obvious owner; that is why I oppose the hon. Gentleman's probing amendment, which would delete that power.At present, under section 150(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, anyone who takes charge of such a dog has to return it to the owner or deliver it to the police or local authority. When the Bill is enacted, the police and others will have to take the dog to the local authority or return it to the owner.
I shall give an assurance. The question might arise as to what happens when there are no local authority representatives to deal with a stray. If it is clear that the situation needs to be dealt with immediately for the benefit of the local community, the police would be able to get hold of that dog. They could, if appropriate, use their power under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has also confirmed its view that the police do not require specific statutory power to seize stray dogs. The police regularly round up strays of other species such as horses and sheep, without having a specific statutory power to do so. I will ensure that the guidance needed to spell out how these parts of the Bill should be enacted will point to the existing powers and practice so that there is no misunderstanding or a feeling that the police cannot do anything about this as a result of the Bill. That is not the case and I hope that that provides the clarity that the hon. Gentleman sought. 
10 am 
For those reasons, it is not necessary to retain the power that is being deleted in the Bill. The police will be most unlikely to make use of that power. Indeed, they have asked for it to be removed, despite having clarity about what they will continue to be able to do, which is referred to in the ACPO representations. 
While I appreciate the reasons for tabling amendment No. 21, I can assure the Committee that it is unnecessary. Any local authority faced with a sick or injured dog would seek to have it treated immediately. It is worth reminding the Committee that this is not a new duty for local authorities, but the extension of an existing one. Local authorities are under a duty under sections 149 and 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 properly to feed and maintain stray dogs that they seize or that are delivered to them. That includes and covers treating sick and injured dogs. The provisions of the Animal Welfare Bill will make a seminal improvement to the way animals are treated in a variety of circumstances. 
Amendment No. 22 is also unnecessary, although I note that it was moved in an extremely constructive manner by the hon. Member for Vale of York. As I  indicated in my intervention, stray dogs have been provided for in legislation for at least 98 years. During that period, the lack of a legal definition of stray dogs has not created major problems for those dealing with them, and I do not think that we need a legal definition to describe what is a matter of common sense and normal English usage. I am sure that the hon. Lady, given her legal background, would accept that the injunction to legislators, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', is useful. There are often unintended consequences in constraining the ordinary common-sense meaning of various words, which the courts and organisations such as the police and local authorities are well used to interpreting. 
The hon. Lady referred to microchipping. This is comparatively recent technology. I have been at pains to encourage, but not to require, the use of microchips for horses, for instance. They can be very valuable animals. Use of microchips has also been encouraged by organisations such as the British Horse Society. It is required by some of the breed societies that deal with particularly valuable animals. This is a progressive arrangement. Microchipping of animals by owners and the use of microchips by authorities to identify animals is likely to continue and to accelerate. It is being used in Cardiff to deal with stray horses and I was discussing that with the police last week—

David Taylor: Order. May I point out to the Minister that the clause deals not with the microchipping of horses but with the termination of police responsibility for stray dogs?

Alun Michael: Indeed. I pointed that out in an intervention earlier. I was simply explaining that the issues raised by the hon. Lady are reasonable, although outside the scope of the Bill. This Bill is not the appropriate place to make a step change in requirements for microchips although I am sure that they will continue to be important.
It would not be appropriate to accept amendment No. 99. I will explain why. Clause 68 makes local authorities solely responsible for stray dogs. It will be for local authorities to make arrangements to ensure that there are facilities to deal with stray dogs at all times, including at night. It is up to local authorities how they do this. Providing a 24-hour dog warden service may be one way, but it could be costly. So could providing dedicated or council-owned kennels. Those are not necessarily examples of the right way to do it, although it is up to the local authority to decide. In a large rural district, those examples might well be an expensive way of providing the necessary cover. However, making arrangements with local vets would be one good way. 
I made the point to police officers when I spoke to them last week that often, even though there may be a dedicated service, the first stop for many people will be to knock at the door of the police station or to ring the police. It fits well with the crime reduction approach that has been encouraged for arrangements to be made locally so that information is readily available. On all those grounds, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Matthew Green: As I said, the amendment was designed to provoke a discussion, rather than to be pressed to a vote, because we do not oppose the measure to make the local authority the responsible party in this instance.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, although my softly-softly, charming approach is not working quite as successfully as I thought, so I might try a more aggressive approach as the morning proceeds. I understood him to say that he thought that amendment No. 99 was the work of the RSPCA, but in fact it was suggested by the Kennel Club, because local authority dog warden services tend to operate a standard, nine-to-five working day, Monday to Friday, with no weekend cover. I understand that the Minister said that as recently as Friday he was still having discussions, presumably on the resources and on the level of cover, but we would still prefer the matter to be dealt with explicitly in the Bill.
We pay tribute to the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the National Dog Warden Association for the work that they do. For the record, it is important that we accept that certainly the members of the NDWA already work long hours for modest pay. If local authorities are to rely on them, they will probably want more resources to be made available. I ask the Minister also to take note of the fact that Westminster city council believes that the consultation document and the Bill are still light on detail. It would prefer the responsibility to remain with the police. With those remarks, and given that we have had a lengthy debate, I shall conclude.

Matthew Green: We have said far too much on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question agreed to. 
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 - Designation of alarm notification areas

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 69, page 56, line 34, leave out from 'area' to end of line 35.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 119, in clause 70, page 57, line 12, leave out from 'area' to end of line 13.

Sue Doughty: Again, this is a probing amendment. We are really considering how the designation of alarm notification areas will work. The Bill requires local authorities to send written notification to the  address of every premises in their area. Our amendment would remove that requirement. Our concern is whether it is practicable to mail every address, especially in view of the in-fill building that is going on; if someone was not notified, they could have a reasonable objection to the alarm notification later on and say that they had not received a letter about it.

Alun Michael: I appreciate that this is a probing amendment; we will provide clarification when we can. I can clarify the point that failure by the post to deliver notification to all addresses in the area would not invalidate an order designating an area, provided that a genuine attempt had been made to notify people. There is no question of a clerical error or a mistake on an address invalidating the order. I am happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his assurance.
Constituents often tell their MPs that they were not told about a planning application because the information was not extended to a wide enough area. How does the Minister expect people to be notified? It may be burdensome to send the notification by post to every area, and there will be costs, unless the mailing is sent out with the council tax bills, for example. 
The Minister has already responded to the other point that I wanted to make. The amendments provide an opportunity for him to expand on how the proposal would work.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. I am happy to give her the explicit clarification that she seeks. The creation of an alarm notification area creates a legal obligation on anyone in that area with an audible intruder alarm to register with the local authority; it will be a criminal offence not to do so. In those circumstances, it is important that everyone likely to be affected is told of the plans to create an alarm notification area and of the decision to designate such an area. That is the reason for the provision that the amendment would delete.
As I said, failure in a mailing round, if that is the means adopted, by accident or exception, would not invalidate the order. Individual notification by mail is not the only way in which the information could be given. Individual notification at the outset of designation or undesignation would not necessarily have to be a dedicated mailing; notice could be included in council tax bills, as the hon. Member for Guildford suggested. I confirm that that would be acceptable within the provisions of the Bill. The notices could also be included with news letters or other mailings, provided that they were likely to be received in advance of the decision to designate or undesignate an area taking effect. 
These are common-sense provisions that people should be aware of the requirement on them which it will be a criminal offence not to observe. If there was a prosecution, the court would take into account matters such as the fact that an individual had been unaware of the requirement. An individual omission could be dealt with in that way. It is surely sensible to ensure that as far as is practicable everyone in an area  knows that they have that obligation, not least so that they can observe it and the nuisance to the neighbourhood can be avoided. 
 I hope that, having heard my explanation, the hon. Lady will accept my assurance and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sue Doughty: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the matter; it was the information we sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Installation of intruder alarms in alarm notification areas—
 '(1) A person who installs an intruder alarm on or in any premises in an alarm notification area, shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) above may in particular include— 
(a) requirements for an automatic cut-off mechanism to terminate the sounding of the alarm after a specified period; and 
(b) requirements for the suitably visible display on the alarm or the premises of a telephone number by which the local authority can be notified of a noise nuisance from the alarm.'.

Sue Doughty: The new clause is intended to clarify matters. We already have some legislation in London relating to the issue. For example, it has been a requirement to register the name and address of a key holder with the local authority since 1991. In London, two key holders are required and there is a 20-minute cut-out system on alarms. Local authorities were made aware of that through the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. However, little use has been made of the legislation.
We want to ensure that those who may be ignorant of the person whom they need to contact when an alarm is causing a nuisance, can ring up somebody and say, ''We have a problem here.'' If the number is displayed somewhere prominently, it is easier for people to get on with the job and decide who to call. It is not much fun at 3 o'clock in the morning to be wondering who to contact. We are concerned that if the number is not displayed, people may ring the emergency services and waste their time. If someone is being driven up the wall by an alarm, they want to know whom they should ring, rather than disturbing people who do not have a duty to do anything about it. 
The new clause is intended as clarification. The cut-off mechanism, which we believe is in place in London, is included, and mention is made of a telephone number so that the local authority knows who is causing the problem and can deal with it.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss clause stand part, which will put part 7 in context. My understanding is that the  clause sets out what the local authority must do to designate an alarm notification area. In particular, subsection (5) provides that an authority
''must consider any representations about the proposal'' 
to make a designation, and subsection (8) provides that when the authority decides to make a designation it must send notice of that decision to all premises in the area. Under subsections (8) and (4), the Bill makes it clear that 
 ''The specified date must be at least 28 days after the date on which the notice is published''. 
Elsewhere in the Bill, there are provisions for the nomination of key holders. To what extent will the obligation be on the local authority to inform the designated key holder? Or will it be for the householder or the business on whose premises the alarm is fitted to comply with the clause? 
We have received a number of representations on that issue—not least from Westminster city council. The council responded to previous Government consultations and in its view a fundamental review of noise legislation is required to address what it sees as glaring deficiencies. I wonder why the Government chose to go down this path, rather than holding the fundamental review that Westminster city council would have preferred. The council does not consider that the minor proposals in the Bill, and which are addressed in the current consultation, meet the scale of the problem. 
The Government's ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' document concluded that excessive noise is still regarded as a major problem by members of the public. The Library document includes the number of complaints. The latest figures show that in 2002-03 environmental health officers who, I understand, are those responsible for noise matters, received 224,502 complaints about noise at domestic premises and 305,090 complaints about noise in total. Confirmed nuisances for 2002-03 on domestic premises were 25,791 and complaints on all premises were 35,484. It is a big problem. 
Westminster city council already has a 24-hour lawyer service responding to over 16,000 reports of noise problems a year. Its representatives are concerned that existing legislation provides insufficient disincentives to prevent excessive noise and that proposed measures fall far short of what is needed. 
The city of Westminster council has found that the Noise Act 1996 has not provided much assistance. It relies largely on the application of statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with noise problems and therefore it does not see much benefit in extending local authority powers under sections 8 and 9 of the Noise Act. Would the Minister comment on that point? 
The council points out that the noise service operated by Westminster city council costs £927,000 a year. The service is well used, respected and appreciated by local people and it is all that they have to protect them when they are subject to unacceptable noise. 
The local authority has to maintain that personal data and therefore it is responsible for amending or deleting it, depending on the designated status. Will the Minister share with us the implications of the Data Protection Act 1998? We are led to believe as regards our constituency case files that it is normal to keep information for a maximum of three years. 
For what length of time does the Minister expect that such information will be kept, bearing it in mind that in areas such as Westminster there will be substantial changes of ownership during a three-year period? Is it the Department's intention to ask local authorities to have and hold that information for one or two years or for the maximum three-year period, which is my understanding under the Data Protection Act? 
A potential discrepancy in the Bill also brought to our attention by the British Security Industry Association is that, while only audible intruder alarms in alarm notification areas need to register key holder information, audible intruder alarms outside the designated areas can still cause a nuisance. We come to that matter later under clause 77. The authorised officer will have no key holder to contact while retaining the same powers of penalty as in alarm notification areas. Was it the wish and the intention of the Minister's Department to have that discrepancy? Should both clauses 69 and 77 apply in the same regard? 
Owners of monitored audible alarms that are eligible for police response already incur additional costs and face possible penalties under the Association of Chief Police Officers' security systems policy for false alarms, which also requires them to register key holder details with their alarm receiving centre. As a result, owners who are in a designated area will have to notify both their alarm receiving centre and the local authority of key holder details. Would the Minister be minded to exempt them from the Bill? 
Whereas in the past British Security Industry Association companies could advise customers to notify the local authority about alarm installations and the police about key holder information, they will now have to establish, via the local authority or the customer, whether the customer is in a designated area. That is subject to change at relatively short notice—28 days under the clause. 
The clause introduces another level of bureaucracy for alarm companies and their customers, who already contend with a great deal of non-statutory regulation from the police. Local authorities may see it as an  opportunity to raise funds by charging for the registration of key holder information. Will regulations be introduced setting out detailed provision for that? The Minister will understand that such a move would be strongly resisted by the security companies, because it could be seen as a stealth tax on individuals who are investing in the security of their homes. We all know that where there is an intruder alarm on domestic premises, the insurance premium is slightly lower. I am sure that the same applies to business premises. 
A disparity could also arise between local authority charges.

David Taylor: Order. The hon. Lady is straying a little wide of the clause.

Anne McIntosh: I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion and simply ask the Minister to address the points that we have raised, in particular the implications of data protection, and to recognise that successive Governments and insurance companies have encouraged householders and owners of business premises to install intruder alarms. I am sure that the Government want to encourage that.
I have a final question for the Minister. Has his Department had a chance to discuss the provisions with the Association of Chief Police Officers? If so, has the Bill been adjusted to take its concerns into account?

Alun Michael: The Bill does not deal with wider issues of noise. I say that because the hon. Lady referred to comments from Westminster city council, which suggested that we should be dealing with wider noise issues instead of the particular nuisance of intruder alarms. That does not seem to me to be a terribly sensible comment, because the council should be aware that we are producing a neighbourhood noise strategy, which we hope to consult on later this year and which will include a thorough review of existing noise legislation. It is far too complex an issue to deal with in the context of the Bill, so a separate, full review is necessary. We are dealing here with the specific problem of intruder alarms, which has been raised with us during our long consultation on ways of improving the environment in local communities.
I was also asked whether regulations would be issued. No regulations are needed, but we will issue guidance. Therefore, local authorities will use the provisions in the Bill flexibly and in a way appropriate to the local area. The guidance will help them to decide how to do that. 
I acknowledge that Westminster—a concentrated area with many premises involved with entertainment and late night activity—has particular problems, many of which are best dealt with in the wider context of noise, as it is widely defined, rather than under the issue of intruder alarms. 
The provisions, which will replace existing requirements and London-specific legislation, will give local authorities the opportunity to provide answers for specific local problems. One example that I want to  address is the requirement that there should be two key holders in an area, although alarm companies obviously place requirements on people through their contractual arrangements. It is one thing to have two key holders in an area of high-density population, but quite another to have the same requirement in a rural area—rural and semi-rural areas might be included in designated areas—in which there might be only two houses within reasonable proximity of each other. In those circumstances, such a requirement would be inappropriate. 
I could not quite follow the hon. Lady's problems regarding flexibility. Of course, the requirements of data protection legislation apply, but we are talking about the provision of information in order to contact key holders to silence alarms and avoid difficulty to the public. Sometimes data protection is discussed as though it forbids reasonable activity or common-sense use of data. It does not: it requires that data be used in a proper manner within legislation that is designed to protect the individual. That is why we had to include a provision in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to make it clear that information can be held and exchanged between bodies for the reduction of crime and disorder. I suggest that the Committee should not have a long discussion about the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and should accept that there needs to be sensible observance of data protection legislation—that might be covered in the guidance. 
I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the provisions of clause 77, but I will deal with that when we debate that clause. 
In drafting these measures, we tried to achieve a balance between the interests of local authorities and the community at large, and those of individual householders. We covered one such issue when we debated the amendment about notification. It is because of that need for balance that I cannot accept new clause 8, which would impose new burdens on individual householders. The benefits it would bring to local authorities and the wider community would not outweigh the cost to individuals. 
It is not necessary to require audible intruder alarms to have a cut-off device, as it is already standard for modern intruder alarms to be fitted with a 20-minute cut-off device, and it is likely that nearly all new alarms will comply. Industry standards change. We are currently considering the introduction of European standards for intruder alarms—the EN 50131 series, as implemented by the British Standards Institution—which will require a 15-minute cut-off. It is more appropriate to address cut-offs through the trade, rather than by penalising individuals. As I have said, other provisions, such as those in clause 77, provide safeguards where there are particular problems. 
It is not necessary for householders to display their local authority telephone number, as that information should already be publicised and readily available. Such a requirement would impose an unnecessary burden on individuals. I am sure that the hon. Lady sought to ensure that common sense will be applied. I  have indicated that guidance to deal with practical issues will be provided, thus enabling local authorities to take appropriate steps to deal with this problem in their areas.

Anne McIntosh: I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, and I look forward to hearing his views on the later clause. There is a serious point about the Data Protection Act, and it would be helpful to know how long he expects information to be held on file.

Alun Michael: That is not relevant to this clause, but if the hon. Lady has specific concerns, I would be happy to drop her a line to outline the relationship with the Data Protection Act.

David Taylor: Order. I am grateful for the Minister's commitment, but this point is not relevant to the clause.

Anne McIntosh: I take that point. The Minister told us that there would be a separate consultation in response to the points I raised on behalf of Westminster city council. He has laid himself open to the charge that that is a knee-jerk reaction; perhaps it would have been better to have waited.

Alun Michael: The specific problem for local authorities of dealing with intruder alarms has come out of consultation. Our reaction has not been knee-jerk; it has been a responsible reaction to provide local authorities with the means to deal with that problem. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her remarks.

Anne McIntosh: I am not minded to withdraw my remarks. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the points I made earlier that in the view of at least one council—Westminster city council—the legislation is not necessary. That view is therefore held by local authorities and the industry that will be affected. They believe that the legislation could be extremely intrusive and costly to impose. We have had a good debate and we will reserve our judgment until Report stage on how the clause will apply.

Alun Michael: May I simply say that legislation should not be driven by one specific council? This legislation is not only for Westminster, or even for the whole of London, but for the whole country. The hon. Lady should search a little wider for the advice that she receives.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Withdrawal of designation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a small point to make about this clause. It clearly states that, having designated an area, a local authority may withdraw that designation. On what basis will the clause apply, and how will local authorities be able to inform all those relevant and  affected, including domestic householders and owners of business premises? What will the cost of the clause be? The regulatory impact assessment is not specific: it states that there will be a cost to local authorities of maintaining a database, but it does not state how much that will be. Therefore, a double cost could be incurred under this and the previous clause.

Alun Michael: It is fascinating that the hon. Lady asks about the costs associated with a clause that deals with removing costs. If the local authority concludes that designation is no longer necessary, and that therefore the cost of maintaining it is no longer necessary, it can remove it. I would have thought that this is sensible flexibility, and I cannot understand her wish to retain an inflexible system and make local authorities maintain a designation whether or not it is still needed.
It is slightly odd that the hon. Lady is referring to costs in relation to this clause. In reference to her one source of information—Westminster city council—it is worth pointing out that the proposed system under the Bill is less costly than the London system already applied by Westminster. The logic of that, and of the authority's communications with Conservative Members on the Opposition Front Bench, seems a little curious.

Anne McIntosh: I shall try to help the Minister. His document—the regulatory impact assessment—states that there will be a cost to local authorities that maintain a database. Clearly, the database that local authorities are asked to update will easily become out of date in a year, given the number of people who change homes and the number of business premises that change ownership or tenant. The alarm systems might be changed, with the introduction of new ones and the lapsing of old ones. It was in the spirit of probing the Minister about how he imagines the database will be kept up to date that we tabled the amendment. It seems extraordinary that the Government have made no estimate of the cost of keeping such a database.

Alun Michael: If I am right we are dealing with clause 70, which has nothing to do with the maintenance of a database; it has more to do with ceasing to have to hold a database, because of ceasing the designation. It is logical that the removal of a designation, which we have already discussed, should be notified to people in the area. I am sorry, but I cannot follow the logic of the hon. Lady's contribution, probing or otherwise.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Notification of nominated key-holders

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in clause 71, page 57, line 22, leave out 'a key-holder' and insert 'at least two key-holders'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 112, in clause 71, page 57, line 25, leave out 'key-holder' and insert 'key-holders'.
No. 113, in clause 72, page 57, line 35, leave out 'a person' and insert 'at least two persons'. 
No. 114, in clause 77, page 61, line 32, leave out 'key-holder' and insert 'key-holders'.

Sue Doughty: The Minister touched on this matter in his remarks on previous clauses. We would like more information. In paragraph 13(2) of schedule 3 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, it states that
''key-holders'', in relation to an alarm, means— 
 (a) two persons, other than the occupier of the premises . . . or 
 (b) a company which holds keys sufficient to obtain access to those premises, from which those keys can be obtained at any time''. 
The Minister suggested that a requirement for two key holders in a rural area might be excessive. I understand his concern about that. In London two key holders are specified—but there are other place apart from London, as the Minister pointed out. Surely it would be better to allow councils to decide on the number of key holders, rather than arbitrarily to provide that there should be one or two. A council might want a requirement for only one key holder in an alarm notification area in a rural place.

Alun Michael: There is nothing to prevent a local authority from asking or suggesting that people should nominate two key holders as best practice at local level. However, it seems inappropriate to require that under the Bill. Local authorities can keep as much information as they wish, provided that the minimum requirement under the Bill is met.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that clarification, which is helpful. I hope that it will be in the guidelines.
I should like to understand a little more about rural areas and difficulties; perhaps the Minister would expand a little on the information that he received, which led him to make the change to a requirement for one key holder.

Nigel Evans: I have reservations about the entire issue, although I understand the Minister when he says that there is a problem. I do not want to go into too much detail about my own security, but clearly I must declare an interest, in that I have an alarm in my property in Ribble Valley. Two years ago, the alarm went off. No one had broken into the premises. It is common sense, in any event, to get someone else to hold a key, and that is what I did. I gave my key to somebody I trust and they telephoned me, because I was not in the Ribble Valley, and said ''Your alarm has been going off for the last half an hour''. They had checked the premises to ensure that nobody had intruded, and I then gave them the code to switch the alarm off.
I suspect that that often happens up and down the country as a matter of course. A homeowner will give their key to somebody they trust, particularly these  days when people are out at work and the house is vacant for most of the working day, unlike 20 or 30 years ago. If people go on holiday for two weeks at a time, there may be nobody on the premises. There is common sense in giving the key to a designated person who regularly checks that the house is okay, looks to see whether there is anything urgent in the mail and feeds the goldfish, or something like that.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is describing common-sense and fairly universal requirements. Many of us have alarms and would be in that situation. This requirement only applies where the local authority has identified that there is a problem and has designated an area.

Nigel Evans: I fully appreciate that the local authority may not have a problem. We will not know until this legislation becomes an Act how often the notification will be used. There may be more of a problem in a residential urban area than in rural areas. In many rural areas the practice I have spoken about happens anyway.
I am not happy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which go further than the one key holder that has already been notified. There must be a lot of publicity going out with this, so that everybody knows the obligations that will be placed on people with alarms. 
Has the Minister considered the possibility that the police could be key holders in certain circumstances, so that they would have access to somebody's premises if the alarm went off. They could switch the alarm off themselves. That may be good practice in rural areas where houses are far apart, and it may be that the key holder is a relative who does not live anywhere near the premises. They may live on the other side of the city or town. In certain circumstances, instead of somebody designating a key holder, their mobile phone number could be logged somewhere, so that they could be notified that their alarm had gone off and could come back and switch it off. 
It is the issue of privacy which bothers me. People may not want to give their keys to anybody, for all sort of reasons that may be of genuine concern to them. As the Minister has intimated, the only time that this provision will ever come into effect is if it is a designated or notified area and the alarm goes off. There is a problem in that case, because there is no key holder around and nobody knows who the notified person is. I know we talk about access to buildings in other clauses. 
Clearly, forced access is not allowed. To require more than one key holder is going to cause problems. We will have enough problems as it is, because some people will say that they do not want even one person to have their key, not even a relative. They are just not interested. Their home is their castle, and they want to keep it that way, even if it means the alarm going off and disturbing people, as it would do if it went off for a long time. I am more of a mind to support the idea  of best practice being that the available alarms switch themselves off after a certain amount of time, whether it is a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. I guess the real problem with that is that some people will have alarms that are 10, 15 or 20 years old. They would need to replace them, which would clearly lead to costs. If the hon. Lady does press these amendments, I certainly will not be supporting them.

Alun Michael: We have responded to local authorities and others, because there has been nuisance in some areas and they wanted the problem to be addressed. We have also considered the requirements in the light of the experience in London. As I indicated earlier, the requirements that we will put in place are likely to be less costly and have more of a light touch than the arrangements that have applied in London. They will be more flexible and therefore more appropriate in a variety of circumstances.
In response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford, I indicated that there is nothing to stop local authorities from suggesting that people nominate two key holders, as best practice at local level. Local authorities can keep as much information as they wish, provided that the minimum requirement is met. 
It is also worth reflecting that the technology has improved massively over recent years. Modern alarms are not subject to as many false alarms—inappropriate false alarms in particular—as was the case a number of years ago, and therefore it is reasonable to place requirements on their owners to ensure that their alarm is in good order, that there is proper notification, and that it is simple to silence those alarms when a problem arises. 
Some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are not appropriate for consideration in the legislation, nor should they be included in the Bill. However, it is a good thing for the police and people in a local area if the arrangements are simple. I would not want to see the provisions of the Bill impose burdens on the police or local authorities that go beyond what is sensible. The arrangements that we propose are based on what we have learned from the London experience, and are less costly than the alternatives that have been in place in London. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: There is real concern that there will be an inconsistency between the situation in London, which requires that more than one key holder should be nominated, and the situation in other parts of the country. Is the Minister satisfied that those concerns have been properly addressed?

Alun Michael: Yes, indeed. As I said, it is possible for a local authority to hold more than one key holder's details, and to indicate to people within a designated area that that is what it wishes to see happen, but that would not be a legal requirement. The legal requirement would be for a single key holder. The law should deal with the minimum that is necessary for an effective system to operate, rather than applying a provision that might be inappropriate in some circumstances.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his commitment to leave the matter with local councils, because that is where it should be.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, I am a little concerned about one aspect. I appreciate that people do not want someone else going into their home, and that there should be respect for their privacy. However, if their alarm is going off, which is no respecter of anyone else's privacy, I take the tough view that that nuisance cannot be allowed to continue unabated. That might mean that someone has to get a new alarm that switches off after a certain amount of time. If people want privacy, they must also reduce the risk that their alarm keeps going off. 
We have got the answer that we were seeking in respect of the amendments that we tabled, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the clause or amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - Nomination of key-holders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is a small point for clarification. Clause 71 creates a new offence and on conviction a person is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. I assume that it will be the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the provisions of the clause are brought to the attention of those who may fall under them. What happens if the responsible person, as described in subsections (4) and (5), has delegated his responsibility? What if there has been a change in the person who is responsible for complying with the provisions of the clause? Is it the  responsible person himself, the key holder or the owner of the premises if it is a dwelling or the tenant if it is business premises?
Subsection (3) states: 
 ''A person may be nominated as a key-holder in respect of premises'' 
only if he meets the criteria that are set out. In the event of a disagreement where it is not clear who that person is, who interprets that part of the subsection and the other provisions of the clause?

Alun Michael: On the last point, such issues will be dealt with in a common-sense way by the local authorities. It will issue guidance and make it clear to those to whom a notice is given of the designation of an area exactly how they must carry out their requirements. It is the responsibility of the responsible person to do it properly. Clearly if the local authority spotted that it was not being pursued in the right way, it would raise that with the individual. Responsibility must rest with the responsible person.
The clause essentially provides the back-up provision to deal with those who are casual about their responsibilities and flout the interests of the local community by failing to do what they are supposed to do. I would be extremely surprised if a local authority did not first point out to someone who was failing to comply with the requirements that they were subject to a criminal conviction and invite them to comply, not least because that would avoid the cost of undertaking a prosecution. An authority could go straight to a prosecution if someone was flouting the law and clearly had no intention of complying. The court would take account of the circumstances in deciding whether a person should be found guilty and what punishment should be given out. I am certain that the proportionality of our system of prosecution would deal with those issues.

Nigel Evans: The newspapers have been full recently of the case of a lady who was stopped for eating an apple while driving. I think the case cost well over £10,000 in the end. Is that the proportionality and reasonableness that we would want to see in the clause?

Alun Michael: I have referred in the past to the time when the current leader of the Conservative party was attacked by the newspapers when someone was fined for the so-called ''mere dropping'' of a crisp packet. The circumstance of the case turned out to be quite different. I will not be driven by references to a lady eating an apple while driving when I do not know the circumstances. I certainly do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers. I am certain that in general proportionality applies. There is the odd case, which is the exception. Often with odd cases the description in the newspapers has nothing to do with the actual circumstances. I counsel the hon. Gentleman, whether dealing with arms or apples, to be sure of the facts.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Offences under section 71: fixed penalty notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Would it be in order to refer to clauses 73, 74, 75 and 76 together, Mr. Taylor?

David Taylor: I plan to take all the stand part debates separately.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
I have a question about subsection (3)(a), which states that 
''no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days starting with the day after that on which the notice is given''. 
The responsible person—the home owner or business premises tenant—could be sick for an extended period and the person to whom he delegates responsibility away for a shorter period but longer than the 14 days. In some circumstances, 14 days will be seen as an extremely short period. It is a question of clarification. 
I am a little concerned about the definition of authorised officer in subsection (11). Some people may fall into these categories through delegation in a company, particularly in relation to business premises. The provision is very narrowly drawn.

Alun Michael: May I point out, first, that subsection (3)(a) refers to the giving of a fixed penalty notice? It does not say that, after the expiry of the 14 days, there must be a prosecution. If there is a prosecution, that involves notification to the individual and a response, which might be ''I've been away for a month. Here's my cheque.'' Local authorities are not likely to rush to a prosecution if it is not appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that the Bill sets out a reasonable minimum period; a longer period would be inappropriate in such circumstances.
We seek to leave the designation of an authorised officer to the flexibility of the local authority, but we shall cover the issue in guidance. We would expect the local authority to ensure that an appropriate person undertook the work. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Amount of fixed penalty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Is the figure of £75 in subsection (2)(b) a minimum, a maximum or a guideline? There is concern that different levels of fine will apply in different local authority areas, which would probably not be a good idea. Can the Minister give us some guidance about that? People are worried that, as the fixed penalty will be payable to the local authority, it could be perceived as a stealth tax and a means of raising money. Can he put their minds at rest on that point?

Nigel Evans: I also seek clarification on the clause. I know that the Minister will say that the fine must be set at a level that people, if they have offended, are likely to pay rather than risk going to court. If the amount is disproportionate, such as £500 or £1,000, that is clearly a huge sum of money. The fine must be reasonable, and £75 has been deemed fairly reasonable.
Is the provision flexible for a local authority where somebody's alarm has gone off a few times because of a fault, particularly if, for instance, the alarm is reset but goes off again in two weeks because of another fault? We must incentivise the person to maintain or replace the alarm, particularly if it is old. If somebody's alarm went off and the local authority said, ''In these circumstances, we would normally fine you £100, but we will reduce that amount if you replace it or obtain a certificate to show that it has been properly maintained,'' would the arrangement be flexible, or does the local authority have to fine them? We do not want to penalise people willy-nilly; we want the problem to go away. That is what the Bill is all about, and we want the fault on the alarm fixed.

Alun Michael: The fixed penalty notice in this case is for not registering.

Nigel Evans: In which case, I will sit down.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for resuming his seat with such grace.
I do not want to indulge in tedious repetition about an issue that has already been dealt with exhaustively elsewhere in the Bill. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman answered the debate with his point that penalties must be set at a level that will make people more likely to pay them. They should not be set at a level that people would not pay and that would lead to the costs of prosecution for the local authority or at a level that is so low that it has no impact on people's behaviour. That is the simple answer to the whole issue. 
The powers enable local authorities to set their own level of fixed penalty in their areas, and to treat a penalty as paid if a lesser amount is paid within a shorter specified period. That gives local authorities the flexibility to act sensibly. Those powers may be subject to limitations contained in regulations made by the appropriate person or body, which is the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly for Wales. The power is there to ensure that limitations are made if necessary. I do not think that they will be, as it is a straightforward matter. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Use of fixed penalty receipts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: If I understood the Minister and the Government are still consulting about the range of fees, obviously what follows on in clause 75 is the fact that the income and the revenue derived from those fixed penalty receipts will vary between councils. That seems a little discriminatory. With reference to existing fixed penalty notices in existing legislation, Westminster city council has a very good record of implementing them and chasing offenders. We have noted that other councils, such as Bath, do not.
I remind the Minister and the Committee that there is an excellent table on page 86 of the Department's full regulatory impact assessment for the Bill. Will the Minister explain the basis on which it is estimated that 500 fixed penalty notices will be issued in respect of the nomination of a key holder? Let us say that the amount on a notice will be £75. Apparently, prosecutions are expected to flow from only 20 per cent. of the 500 notices issued, so 100 prosecutions is the conservative estimate. The yield on a 25 per cent. basis is, I believe, £125 million up and down the country. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that figure. 
The suggestion is that for all that we have seen in this part of the Bill and for all the administration that local authorities are being asked to undertake, the income that will derive from fixed penalty receipts could vary and may not reflect the cost of issuing fixed penalty notices and pursuing receipts. I repeat that where there is a discrepancy and discrimination between local authorities, receipts will obviously be used for variable purposes. The situation is unfair for local authorities where notices do not yield so much income.

Nigel Evans: I again seek clarification because it is difficult at the moment to know what will be the burden on a local authority under clause 75 in relation to the receipts coming in and the cost of administering the scheme. As we said earlier, some areas may not designate any of their patches, because there is simply no problem, but in other areas there will be a problem. Let us say that there is a problem with one building and one firm whose alarm is going off all the time. Given  that we are considering the receipts that may be raised, can the Minister confirm whether a local authority has the power under clause 69 to designate just one building in an area?

David Taylor: Order. Clause 75 relates to the use of fixed penalty receipts.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that he has got the general message that if there is no problem, the council should not solve it. If there was no problem and the council did solve it, there would be no income, because there would be no one to prosecute. It would follow that the burden was self-inflicted, rather than imposed by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Vale of York clearly has a problem with devolution, delegation and, indeed, local government generally. She wants it all to be the same size, to have the same problems and to deal with those problems in the same way. She used the term ''discrimination'' in relation to the application of income from fixed penalties, but there are clearly differences between local authorities. A local authority that has a problem may have a certain amount of income from fixed penalties; an authority that does not have a problem will not have that income. That is not discrimination; it is simply that a local authority has to deal with whatever problems it has locally. 
I am delighted that the hon. Lady's bedtime reading includes so many of the Department's excellent publications, although I must say that I would not search for massive illumination in regulatory impact assessments. It is right that we have to assess the regulatory impact of any legislation, but of course, in advance of legislation, we cannot be certain of the outcome. We have to give the best possible estimate, based on what information is available, rather than on experience after the event. Clearly, costs, as well as the nature of a problem, may vary between local authorities. It is for a local authority to decide whether and when to prosecute in default of payment. Ultimately, we favour freedoms and flexibilities for funds to be used initially in the direct area of activity, but as local authorities meet the tests and become excellent councils, they will apply the funds as they think appropriate. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Fixed penalty notices: power to require name and address

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am still suffering from shock that the Minister said that members of the Committee should not seek illumination from the regulatory impact assessment, which raises the question why the Government went to such expense and extravagance  to produce it. Conservative Members find the regulatory impact assessment extremely useful and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is a reliable source—that it is not a guesstimate, but an accurate estimate.
I seek clarification of subsection (3), which states: 
 ''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'' 
What is the proposed amount?

Alun Michael: The level 3 fine is up to £1,000, as it has been throughout our discussions in Committee. If the hon. Lady seeks illumination, I advise that she first switch the light on, because she could illuminate her own thoughts. In preparing a regulatory impact assessment, some pieces of information come from an analysis of what has happened elsewhere, and others depend on our making the most intelligent guess possible on the information available. Any regulatory impact assessment should be read in that context.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Power of entry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The clause relates to enabling an officer to enter premises without a warrant for the purposes of silencing a problem alarm, and it sets out the circumstances in which he may do so, provided that he does not enter by force. It prompts the question that if such an offence is carried on under clause 76 and if the person is seeking the power of entry under clause 77 without using force, how can he be identified? Will he carry any written authority?

Alun Michael: May I help the hon. Lady? Clause 77(5) states:
 ''The officer must, if required, show evidence of his authority to act under this section.'' 
Clearly, he must be carrying it with him or he would not be able to show it.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful. It shows that the Minister is responding to our probing in his usual kindly fashion.

Alun Michael: May I point out to the hon. Lady that it means that I have read the Bill?

Anne McIntosh: So have we, which is why we are seeking clarification. Would not it be helpful to state evidence of whose authority and from whom? Is it from the local authority? Does it mean that, under this clause, there is no recourse to a justice of the peace?

Alun Michael: It refers to an authorised officer of the local authority, so clearly the authorisation lies with the local authority, as does the method of  demonstrating that authority, which in most—indeed, I think all—local authorities is in an acceptable and generally recognised form. The powers in the clause are self-evident. Were it necessary to force entry, it would need to be under other provisions. The clause refers to a straightforward situation which allows an officer to do what is necessary if he is able to gain entry without force.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Warrant to enter premises by force

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Following what the Minister said on a point of clarification, that a warrant is required and that evidence of the warrant must be shown under clause 78, would it not be normal for a warrant to enter premises by force require the identification of an authorised officer—meaning that the officer should be wearing uniform—to distinguish the powers of entry under clause 78 from those under clause 77? Clearly entering by force carries with it more severe powers and penalties than did the previous measure.

Alun Michael: The simple answer is no. Let us take a proportionate response to the clause. It relates to a situation in which an
''alarm has been sounding continuously for more than twenty minutes or intermittently for more than one hour'' 
and in a location where it is likely to cause annoyance to persons living or working in the vicinity. Anyone who lives in the vicinity of a repeater alarm will know exactly what that means. The clause also stipulates that in a designated area 
''reasonable steps have been taken to get the nominated key-holder to silence the alarm'' 
and that entry to the premises without force is not possible. 
So, the context is reasonable. Anyone who has experienced that irritating problem will be unamused that the hon. Lady does not support the proposal. It is not a new power. Under current law, a local authority officer can enter premises by force to silence an alarm. The clause makes the procedure simpler and faster. I commend it to the Committee.

Sue Doughty: I seek clarification. As the Minister points out, the powers have existed before. However, there have been considerable complaints, by the Noise Abatement Society and others, which say that the time before one can get into a premises and silence the alarm is too long. In his remarks, the Minister said that the procedure would become faster. For clarification, and to give us hope, will he say how long it would typically take to get into a premise using the powers?

Alun Michael: As I said, at the moment, the procedure is a lengthy one. It can take from three to six hours. Under the procedure proposed in the clause, an  officer who decides that he cannot silence an alarm without entering the premises by force can go to a magistrate immediately. He leaves the notification on the premises and returns as soon as the warrant is obtained to silence the alarm. The procedure for getting a signature from a magistrate does not take long. It can be faster in the hours of darkness, when the poor magistrate is tucked up in bed. I have been approached in those circumstances. The proposed procedure can happen extremely quickly and will avoid the present delay.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Powers of entry: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I wish to make a small point. Subsection (4) mentions:
 ''The officer and any person who enters the premises''. 
Only an authorised officer should enter the premises. Is the clause suggesting that someone is accompanying the authorised officer? That seems to completely contradict clause 78. 
In full, the subsection says:
 ''The officer and any person who enters the premises with him by virtue of subsection (3) must not cause more damage to or disturbance at the premises than is necessary for the purpose of silencing the alarm.'' 
It adds: 
 ''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority . . . may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person.'' 
Will the Minister explain what happens if even minimal damage has been done to the property? Who is responsible for making good that damage? Who will pay the cost of restoring the property to the state it was in before the damage was caused by forced entry?

Nigel Evans: I want to make a similar point about clause 79(5)(b). Will the Minister say why he feels it necessary to have brackets around
''(so far as is reasonably practicable)''? 
The subsection says that the officer must leave the premises 
''as effectively secured against entry as he found them.'' 
I assume that the officer entering the premises to silence the alarm is not going to cause more damage than they reasonably need to. On the point about securing the premises on leaving them, the point of having an alarm is that people want to protect their premises. The last thing that they would want is to find out that when the alarm— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.